jacbot Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 tomatoes that like salt water http://www.theguardian.com/science/2001/jul/31/gm.food The meat undustry would propable make a cow like a meat tree, no brain, only some organs that keep the meat tree alive and some connectors for food and waste.
NeoCortex Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Without genetically modified food, we would have never have fed our population to grow so big and healthy.Pesticides which are used to compensate for the old-as-fuck soil farming method, are the real issue. There are no positive stressors in your classical soil farming, there is no diversity. The farmer plows his land to effectively seed and harvest, killing all the worms and organisms in the soil. His lack of nutrients starts to show, better use some more pesticides! Hydraponics, Aquaponics, Permaculture; these are things to start looking out for in the future. It is hard, but there are already companies making good profits using these techniques. Shit ain't easy 'do. I'm not arguing that those books have tons of information, just that the information is all false. That is a really bad, utter, terrible, shit post. Try again with an argument, not with feces. I hope you understand why I say this.
RandR10 Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 GMO is NOT the same as selective breeding. GMO involves blasting genes from one species onto another in a lab, then what you end up with is a chimera monster that has nothing to do with any lifeform that evolved properly and in healthy steps along the way. There's no way to tell what that can do to us when we eat them. They haven't "earned" their right to exist in the same way all other lifeforms have, through a slow process of selection whereby mutations that are harmful to the organism (or the grower) can be weeded out. -Genetic modification via recombinant DNA technology is the most pure way of altering an organism. Researchers that do this know exactly what is being put into the crop, which is usually a single protein. If this protein, which occurs naturally, isn't toxic (no GMOs exist with synthetic proteins, as far as I'm aware), the resultant genetic modification will not be harmful to the consumer. This process has no relationship with natural selection or even artificial selection, which are messy processes that have many side effects. However, there are cases where the answer is easy to come up with. If a crop is genetically modified to grow it's own pesticides, and we eat the plants, then we get all the pesticides too. We know pesticides in large amounts are not good for our bodies. With regular pesticides used in food growing, you can at least wash or peel some of them away before ingesting the foods. When the crops are growing their own pesticides, you can't do that, because it's not just on the outside, but in all parts of the plant, and in high concentrations. -Most pesticides in modern use are non-toxic to the human body except in extremely large doses that are only seen in laboratory testing. Any of the crops that I know of that generate their own pesticides are engineered with naturally occurring repellents, like the BT toxin that is widely used in organic farming to keep bugs away. The others are resistant to pesticides that kill plants so that it can be sprayed in the fields without killing the main crop. The farmers do not harvest their crops for several weeks after the application of pesticides because doing so sooner would be a waste of the expensive pesticides. Do you have a particular GM crop that you're concerned with that maybe I haven't heard of? In any case, the question should really be about property rights. If I grow non-GMO, and your GMO crops contaminate mine through crossbreeding, shouldn't you be liable for damages? If you want to experiment with GMOs, knock yourself out, but it's your responsibility to keep your GMO crops from genetically contaminating mine. The reason why the GMO growers can't claim the same also applies to them in reverse, is because farmers have been growing non-GMO for thousands of years, and thus they've homesteaded the right of crossbreeding and the reasonable expectation has always been that by growing crops on the open, they wouldn't be contaminated by GMO crossbreeding, because those did not exist. And when GMO crops first appeared, they were able to crossbreed with non-GMO. I think the situation is similar to someone who programs a virus for Windows 7, and then claims that they had no intention to make the virus infect W7 computers, but that through everyday exchange of information with other people, the virus just happened to get out (which was inevitable since he did not take the precautions in shielding the information on his computer from everybody else using W7) -Agreed. The main problem with GMOs is this intellectual property BS. Without the state or the ability to initiate aggression, this would be impossible in most cases.
Recommended Posts